10 reasons chess may never make it as a spectator sport
12 November 2013 Last updated at 02:41 GMT
The current world championship between Norwegian prodigy Magnus Carlsen and defending champion Vishy Anand is a rare moment when the spotlight is on the world of chess. At these high-profile moments the same question is asked: Can chess ever truly make it as a spectator sport? Here are 10 reasons why it might not, writes Finlo Rohrer.
1. The body language of the players is hardly televisable. Many players sit with their head cupped in their hands. They can play a rapid series of moves at the beginning but then nothing happens for minutes at a time. The players’ faces barely flicker. Poker players are animated by comparison.
2. The Cold War is over. Chess’s benchmark historic occasion was the contest between American genius Bobby Fischer and Soviet champion Boris Spassky in Iceland in 1972. The geopolitical backdrop added piquancy to an occasion that dominated headlines around the world – it was billed as individualist American against machinelike Soviet.
3. Chess isn’t like it is in the movies. The movies like to use chess as either a) a signal that a person is brainy and possibly devious, or b) a metaphor for some kind of struggle. That struggle can be intellectual (Roy Batty v Eldon Tyrell in Blade Runner) or even romantic (the Thomas Crown Affair).
4. The layman gets no real insight into the extraordinary minds of Carlsen and Anand. In a sense they cancel each other out. Carlsen is said to have something in the region of 10,000 games memorised. He can play 10 opponents simultaneously. Blindfolded. This level of remarkable brainpower would impress a layman but it doesn’t naturally come out in the world championship.
5. About that cancelling out. The first game of this current series ended in a draw after 16 moves. The second also ended in a draw.
Full article here.
I was thinking about this today. The most important reason why it will struggle as a spectator sport is unlike others, you have to know how to play the game to enjoy it. To a layman, Fischer’s sac against Byrne just looks like 64 squares with awkward looking pieces on top. In say, basketball, the esthetics of a dramatic dunk or half court shot in the waning seconds does not require any ability or even knowledge of the rules of the game.
Folowing your logic, Anon, Suicide Chess would be an easy spectator sport, which all would understand quickly?
Interesting article, however I don’t really give a damn if chess will ever be a spectator sport or not. I don’t give a damn if uneducated beer-drinking masses will ever have the same hobby as myself. I don’t care. Actually this is exactly why it is my hobby. Because I don’t really want to mess around with these kind of people. Sounds arrogant, I know, but I guess I am not the only one thinking like that. There are a lot of other cultural activities out there which can very well “live” without being a “spectator”-type-of-thing. How often have you watched opera on a screen in Time Square?